Welcome to Rocksolid Light

mail files register newsreader groups login

Message-ID:

19 May, 2024: Line wrapping has been changed to be more consistent with Usenet standards.
If you find that it is broken please let me know here rocksolid.nodes.help

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

Subject	Author
Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior YES/NO	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior YES/NO	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	immibis
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	olcott
When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	Mikko
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	Richard Damon
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --l	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott

Pages:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<ust5qa$15f7u$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55686&group=comp.theory#55686

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:28:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <ust5qa$15f7u$2@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
<usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
<usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
<usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
<usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me>
<usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
<usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>
<usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me>
<uspshf$c1qv$1@dont-email.me> <ussl77$11otn$1@dont-email.me>
<ussmg9$11q5n$5@dont-email.me> <usst26$13fd2$3@dont-email.me>
<ussv0f$13pe6$3@dont-email.me> <ust37o$14ra1$4@dont-email.me>
<ust3ra$14v0p$3@dont-email.me> <ust4vr$15afd$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:28:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa13334f329e2006d1dfb90f9960e443";
logging-data="1228030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cB8sMir7D5BxhDfHp21+E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wA2AVj8V9XaRK022cA9EmhiWzU0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ust4vr$15afd$2@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:28 UTC

On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/03/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/03/24 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 1:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/03/24 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∃B∈Barbers. (∀P∈People. Shaves(B,P) == ¬Shaves(P,P))
>>>>> has a truth value. Its truth value is false. Its truth value is
>>>>> false because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> The barber shaves all people that do not shave themselves
>>>> ∃B ∈ Barbers ∀P ∈ People (Shaves(B,P) ↔ ¬Shaves(P,P)))
>>>>
>>>> Your version seems better than this one:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox#In_first-order_logic
>>>
>>> Wikipedia agrees with me. Wikipedia says it is false because it is a
>>> contradiction.
>>>
>>
>> So why did we ever need ZFC ?
>>
> For the Barber paradox? Not needed. But naive set theory says the barber
> exists, which is a mistake.

If Predicate Logic proves that no such barber exists
that would seem to overrule naive set theory.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust60k$1oq9q$7@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55687&group=comp.theory#55687

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:32:04 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ust60k$1oq9q$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me>
<usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me>
<usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>
<usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org>
<ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me>
<ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me> <ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:32:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1861946"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:32 UTC

On 3/13/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>>
>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>
>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>
> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
> from this paper.
>
> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>
>

And repeating lies and error just shows that your lie and believe the
errors.

Since it has been pointed out that he was WRONG in his statement, there
is no "reckless disreguard for the truth"

YOU are the one that shows a "reckless disregard for the truth",
(because you refuse to learn the truth) and thus YOUR statements could
make you subject to Libel and Slander.

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust62a$1oq9q$8@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55689&group=comp.theory#55689

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:32:58 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ust62a$1oq9q$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me>
<usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me>
<usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>
<usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org>
<ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me>
<ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me> <ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me>
<ust2vd$14ra1$1@dont-email.me> <ust442$14v0p$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1861946"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ust442$14v0p$6@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:32 UTC

On 3/13/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/03/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>
>>>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>
>>> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
>>> from this paper.
>>>
>>> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> And it's obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>
> It is not even me speaking so it can't be me lying.

Repeating another lies is a form of lie.

>
>>> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
>>> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>
>> Does that mean you libelled and slandered the halting problem?
>>
> Yet again Trollish behavior
>

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust6np$15m14$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55691&group=comp.theory#55691

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <ust6np$15m14$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me>
<usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me>
<uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me> <usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me>
<usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org> <ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me>
<ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me> <ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me>
<ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me> <ust60k$1oq9q$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa13334f329e2006d1dfb90f9960e443";
logging-data="1234980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ljgQbUCAoppUCsZj7CucS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XMOCQBNsqxa31UI7031Zi1GniNY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ust60k$1oq9q$7@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:44 UTC

On 3/13/2024 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/13/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>
>>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>
>> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
>> from this paper.
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
>> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>
>>
>
> And repeating lies and error just shows that your lie and believe the
> errors.
>
I believe what I say or I wouldn't say it.

Revelations 21:8 NRSV
....all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns
with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

> Since it has been pointed out that he was WRONG in his statement, there
> is no "reckless disreguard for the truth"
>
He called me a liar because he did not bother to even notice
that I was quoting someone else's words this is definitely
a "reckless disregard for the truth".

> YOU are the one that shows a "reckless disregard for the truth",
> (because you refuse to learn the truth) and thus YOUR statements could
> make you subject to Libel and Slander.

I did not commit libel against the halting problem as immbis suggested.

On 3/13/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> Does that mean you libelled and slandered the halting problem?

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust6qm$15m14$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55692&group=comp.theory#55692

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:45:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <ust6qm$15m14$2@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me>
<usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me>
<uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me> <usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me>
<usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org> <ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me>
<ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me> <ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me>
<ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me> <ust2vd$14ra1$1@dont-email.me>
<ust442$14v0p$6@dont-email.me> <ust62a$1oq9q$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:45:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa13334f329e2006d1dfb90f9960e443";
logging-data="1234980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HUzWDFkp6KR/KM/Si6nXM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4G6f51Mri9CAMbesLNoZHkrJjXw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ust62a$1oq9q$8@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:45 UTC

On 3/13/2024 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/13/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/03/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>>>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>>
>>>> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
>>>> from this paper.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>
>>> And it's obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>
>> It is not even me speaking so it can't be me lying.
>
> Repeating another lies is a form of lie.
>
Revelations 21:8 NRSV
....all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns
with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

>>
>>>> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
>>>> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>
>>> Does that mean you libelled and slandered the halting problem?
>>>
>> Yet again Trollish behavior
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust9ak$1oq9q$13@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55702&group=comp.theory#55702

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:28:36 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ust9ak$1oq9q$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me>
<usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me>
<usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>
<usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org>
<ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me>
<ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me> <ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me>
<ust2vd$14ra1$1@dont-email.me> <ust442$14v0p$6@dont-email.me>
<ust62a$1oq9q$8@i2pn2.org> <ust6qm$15m14$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:28:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1861946"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ust6qm$15m14$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:28 UTC

On 3/13/24 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built
>>>>>>>>> from totally legal steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>>>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>>>
>>>>> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
>>>>> from this paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
>>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>>
>>>> And it's obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>>
>>> It is not even me speaking so it can't be me lying.
>>
>> Repeating another lies is a form of lie.
>>
> Revelations 21:8 NRSV
> ...all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns
> with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’
>

But since I am not lying, I'm safe.

YOU are the one speaking untruths and saying they are true. (because you
refuese to learn what is true)

>>>
>>>>> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you libelled and slandered the halting problem?
>>>>
>>> Yet again Trollish behavior
>>>
>>
>

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<ust9r2$1oq7p$16@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55709&group=comp.theory#55709

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:36:44 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ust9r2$1oq7p$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me>
<usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me>
<usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>
<usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org>
<ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me>
<ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me> <ussui6$13pe6$2@dont-email.me>
<ust60k$1oq9q$7@i2pn2.org> <ust6np$15m14$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:37:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1861881"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ust6np$15m14$1@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:36 UTC

On 3/13/24 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>>>>> the H does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>
>>>> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?
>>>
>>> That was cited as a statement from Bill Stoddart and a direct quote
>>> from this paper.
>>>
>>> Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>
>>> That you call me a liar about this meets the required definition of
>>> reckless disregard for the truth required for libel and slander.
>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And repeating lies and error just shows that your lie and believe the
>> errors.
>>
> I believe what I say or I wouldn't say it.

And if it is in error, and you SHOULD know it is in error, then it is a LIE.

>
> Revelations 21:8 NRSV
> ...all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns
> with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

Which since I haven't lied here, I'm ok

YOU are the one that refuses to beleive the actual defintion of things
and thus LIE by telling things that are blantantly untrue, which you
have been given the oppertunity to understand they are untrue, but
refuse to do it, makes your statement lies, even if you believe them.

Trying to restrict the word "Lies" to only know false statements, is
itself a LIE, since it is an accepted meaning for the more general case
of blantently wrong statements, even if firmly beleived.

>
>> Since it has been pointed out that he was WRONG in his statement,
>> there is no "reckless disreguard for the truth"
>>
> He called me a liar because he did not bother to even notice
> that I was quoting someone else's words this is definitely
> a "reckless disregard for the truth".

And repeating a lie can be a lie.

Why do you think Trump's gag orders inluceded reposting things?

>
>> YOU are the one that shows a "reckless disregard for the truth",
>> (because you refuse to learn the truth) and thus YOUR statements could
>> make you subject to Libel and Slander.
>
> I did not commit libel against the halting problem as immbis suggested.

sayig something with reckless disregard for the truth, even if firmly
believed, is Libel and Slander.

The test is would a REASONABLE person have believed it, not the idiot.

>
> On 3/13/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> > Does that mean you libelled and slandered the halting problem?
>
>
>

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usunqu$1j4fq$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55751&group=comp.theory#55751

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:42:22 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <usunqu$1j4fq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me> <uspshf$c1qv$1@dont-email.me> <ussl77$11otn$1@dont-email.me> <ussmg9$11q5n$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1675770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mYx5BEn11ipOCV56vgNPB"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nW5uZeRD4aVbo+4VRZoOSJjiMUA=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:42 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:07:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 03:37:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>>>>>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>>>>>> behavirs.
>>>>>
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you know that is false why lie?
>>>>> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not. The notation is defined by Linz to denote
>>>> a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is required to report on a single finite sequence of
>>> configurations then that only proves that there exists some
>>> halt decider that decides some input incorrectly.
>>>
>>> If it is reporting on every finite sequence of configurations
>>> then that proves that there does not exist a halt decider that
>>> decides every input correctly.
>>>
>>> *Formalized*
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>
>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> Yes, this is another way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>
>
> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
> for H to do this is bogus.

Non sequitur. If H does not meet the requirement then H is not
a halt decider. Disagreement with the stipulation is futile.

--
Mikko

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usuo0b$1j5gi$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55752&group=comp.theory#55752

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:45:15 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <usuo0b$1j5gi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me> <uspshf$c1qv$1@dont-email.me> <ussl77$11otn$1@dont-email.me> <ussmg9$11q5n$5@dont-email.me> <usspve$1oq9q$4@i2pn2.org> <ust1kd$14635$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1676818"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PO/6/Dj6Hhl2G0fyjhUuI"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pgQoXtZeKjkYf+dqrjUHMc1MPRE=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:45 UTC

On 2024-03-13 20:17:17 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 03:37:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>>>>>>>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>>>>>>>> behavirs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you know that is false why lie?
>>>>>>> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. The notation is defined by Linz to denote
>>>>>> a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is required to report on a single finite sequence of
>>>>> configurations then that only proves that there exists some
>>>>> halt decider that decides some input incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is reporting on every finite sequence of configurations
>>>>> then that proves that there does not exist a halt decider that
>>>>> decides every input correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Formalized*
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is another way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>
>>
>> But Halting(H^ (H^)) is not a self-contradictory expression. It is an
>> H-Contradictory expression, so HAS a vallue, and is thus not logically
>> impossible to determine the truth value of it.
>>
>> You are just LYING about working at the level of the Halting Problem.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is halting as a self-contradictory decider/input pair
> within the Halting Problem.
>
> The only lies here are you calling me a liar, the rest (yours and mine)
> are honest mistakes.

Whether you are a liar or merely pretend so is irrelevant to the
topic of this group and should not be discussed. Any atempt to
conclude anything relevant from your quality is a fallacy.

--
Mikko

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usuoap$1j7uo$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55753&group=comp.theory#55753

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:50:49 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <usuoap$1j7uo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me> <uspshf$c1qv$1@dont-email.me> <ussl77$11otn$1@dont-email.me> <ussmg9$11q5n$5@dont-email.me> <usst26$13fd2$3@dont-email.me> <ussv0f$13pe6$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1679320"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+o2JWQoUVW+aMy5CMsnIVY"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:d1p2FWzF6S47TkqPcByG8weeRxQ=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:50 UTC

On 2024-03-13 19:32:31 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 1:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/03/24 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 03:37:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>>>>>>>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>>>>>>>> behavirs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you know that is false why lie?
>>>>>>> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. The notation is defined by Linz to denote
>>>>>> a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is required to report on a single finite sequence of
>>>>> configurations then that only proves that there exists some
>>>>> halt decider that decides some input incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is reporting on every finite sequence of configurations
>>>>> then that proves that there does not exist a halt decider that
>>>>> decides every input correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Formalized*
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is another way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>
>>
>> ∃B∈Barbers. (∀P∈People. Shaves(B,P) == ¬Shaves(P,P))
>> has a truth value. Its truth value is false. Its truth value is false
>> because it is self-contradictory.
>
> The barber shaves all people that do not shave themselves
> ∃B ∈ Barbers ∀P ∈ People (Shaves(B,P) ↔ ¬Shaves(P,P)))
>
> Your version seems better than this one:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox#In_first-order_logic

Wikipedia's is better as it doesn't need B ∈ Barbers -> B ∈ People
that immibis' version should include.

--
Mikko

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usuogc$1j8uo$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55754&group=comp.theory#55754

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:53:48 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <usuogc$1j8uo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me> <uspshf$c1qv$1@dont-email.me> <ussl77$11otn$1@dont-email.me> <ussmg9$11q5n$5@dont-email.me> <usst26$13fd2$3@dont-email.me> <ussv0f$13pe6$3@dont-email.me> <ust37o$14ra1$4@dont-email.me> <ust3ra$14v0p$3@dont-email.me> <ust4vr$15afd$2@dont-email.me> <ust5qa$15f7u$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1680344"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ylFwip8089TVonumaoJ7O"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/+ydkaRI5e2uT/y0Sme4lA599cQ=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:53 UTC

On 2024-03-13 21:28:41 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/03/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/24 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 1:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/03/24 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∃B∈Barbers. (∀P∈People. Shaves(B,P) == ¬Shaves(P,P))
>>>>>> has a truth value. Its truth value is false. Its truth value is false
>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> The barber shaves all people that do not shave themselves
>>>>> ∃B ∈ Barbers ∀P ∈ People (Shaves(B,P) ↔ ¬Shaves(P,P)))
>>>>>
>>>>> Your version seems better than this one:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox#In_first-order_logic
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia agrees with me. Wikipedia says it is false because it is a
>>>> contradiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So why did we ever need ZFC ?
>>>
>> For the Barber paradox? Not needed. But naive set theory says the
>> barber exists, which is a mistake.
>
> If Predicate Logic proves that no such barber exists
> that would seem to overrule naive set theory.

Naive set theory says that no such barber exists.
Naive set theory also says that one such barber exists.
Nothing overrules these.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usuoja$1j8uo$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55755&group=comp.theory#55755

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:55:22 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <usuoja$1j8uo$2@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usmnka$3imd4$1@dont-email.me> <usn67f$3ltl1$1@dont-email.me> <usn6m4$3m1o4$1@dont-email.me> <usn84q$3m7k2$3@dont-email.me> <usp9mv$7pn3$1@dont-email.me> <uspsur$c1qv$2@dont-email.me> <usslor$11s9c$1@dont-email.me> <ussm30$11q5n$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1680344"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Jf1/FRfArqW1UUl5oNGRu"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QSlOZMwM9fEJyD/RLZdthVGELNI=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:55 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:00:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 11:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:39:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:31:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 14:58:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 05:05:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for each Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is incorrect in sthe sense that it is not the question
>>>>>>>> asked in the halting problem. Otherwise it can be a reasonable
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
>>>>>>> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When simulating termination analyzer H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes
>>>>>>> the mapping from its input to its own final state on
>>>>>>> the basis of the behavior that it actually sees then
>>>>>>> halting is always computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expecting it to compute the mapping from its input on
>>>>>>> the basis of behavior that it does not see is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that says anything about correctness of questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>> It is the same as requiring sum(3,4) to report on the sum of 5 + 6.
>>>>
>>>> Just read the specification of sum carefully and code accordingly.
>>>> What you think it should specify is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The specification of the halting problem requires H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>> report on Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that (because of pathological self-reference)
>>> has different behavior than the behavior that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ actually sees.
>>
>> Yes, that too. But Linz' Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects if and only if H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects,
>> which is the only relevant aspect of its behaviour.
>>
>
> Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then
> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> *When we apply this criteria* (elaborated above)
> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
> *Then the halting problem is conquered*
>
> *Yet they both get the correct answer to the above criteria*

Nice to see that you don't disagree about Linz.

--
Mikko

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<usuoqa$1jalv$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55756&group=comp.theory#55756

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:59:06 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <usuoqa$1jalv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me> <usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org> <ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1682111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/U8NZa7wKNctF4keG+u5f4"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9CWBiMdchmAm/OEH3kfereK6oYE=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:59 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:11:06 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>
>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>> totally legal steps.
>>
>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>> the H does not exist.
>>
>
> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)

The last clause is wrong. The cause of inconsistencies is an
assumption that is not a part of the theory of computation.

--
Mikko

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<usuov5$1jcji$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55757&group=comp.theory#55757

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:01:41 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <usuov5$1jcji$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me> <usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <usq57b$1l201$16@i2pn2.org> <ussmab$1206k$1@dont-email.me> <ussmna$1224v$2@dont-email.me> <ussu0i$13ohr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1684082"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18iE+9ZwJpBIdT2pp0gGavn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QiHXRZIP2HWVtloJiJ9/xI3vhKk=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:01 UTC

On 2024-03-13 19:15:28 +0000, immibis said:

> On 13/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 12:04 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-12 18:00:11 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>
>>>> There is no problem with making a H^ from an H, it is built from
>>>> totally legal steps.
>>>
>>> Another way to say the same is that if H^ cannot be built
>>> the H does not exist.
>>>
>>
>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>
> This is obviously bullshit. Why do you lie?

A bullshitter is not a liar. A bullshtter does not care about
the truth. A liar cares enough to try to hide it.

--
Mikko

Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

<usupgn$1jg8o$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55758&group=comp.theory#55758

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:11:03 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 457
Message-ID: <usupgn$1jg8o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me> <usptnb$caqa$1@dont-email.me> <ussm6q$11via$1@dont-email.me> <ussmu2$1224v$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1687832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tMK7RpgSMJOFiBORZVvKA"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cfla5xdnDBRdM68U4tmwWQA0NTA=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:11 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:14:42 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 12:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:52:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 16:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 14:54:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 04:38:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 10:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 7:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 11:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 02:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 02:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 01:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 6:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 5:57 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 00:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/03/24 23:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 3:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/03/24 22:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What criteria would you use so that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ knows what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer to provide?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact same objective criteria that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders must make sure that they themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not get stuck in infinite execution. This means that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort every simulation that cannot possibly otherwise halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This requires Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to abort its simulation and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to abort its simulation when Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does simulate itself in recursive simulation H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not simulate itself in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact same objective criteria that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only because Ĥ.H is embedded within Ĥ and H is not*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can possibly get stuck in recursive simulation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly get stuck in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly ignored that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same OBJECTIVE criteria that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is true no matter what criteria that is used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as H is a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective criteria cannot vary based on who the subject is. They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective. The answer to different people is the same answer if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria are objective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is objectively true that Ĥ.H can get stuck in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation because Ĥ copies its input thus never runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of params.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is objectively true that Ĥ cannot possibly get stuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive because H does not copy its input thus runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of params.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Dead wrong. Stupidly wrong. So wrong that a dead monkey could do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better. Write the Olcott machine (not x86utm) code for Ĥ and I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not a verified fact, that's just something you want to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∞ means infinite loop. Infinite loop doesn't halt. You see how stupid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is, to say that an infinite loop halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ BECAUSE IT IS PRECISELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDENTICAL TO STEPS B AND C:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (c) which begins at Ĥ's own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yes and the key step of copying its input is left out so*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ runs out of params and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never runs out of params*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't how any of this works. Do you even know what words mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) and (c) are not the same as (1) and (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) which begins at simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that Turing machine H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see one more execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ than its simulated Turing machine Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, your just being stuupid, perhaps intentionally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) just moves around to its simulation of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H^.q0 (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ then makes a copy of its inp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H^.H (H^) (H^) == (1) H (H^) (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The algorithm of H begins a simulation of its input, watching the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaior of H^ (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) = (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which begins at the simulation of H^.q0 (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d = sim a) = (sim a)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ths Simulated H^.q0 (H^) makes a copy of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e = sim b) = (sim b)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Simulated H^.H (H^) (H^) has is H begin the simulation of its input ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both machine see EXACTLY the same level of details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the top level H is farther along at any given time then its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated machine, and that is H's problem, it has to act before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees how its simulation will respond to its copy of its actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if it stops, it needs to make its decision "blind" and not with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an idea of how the machine it is simulating will perform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't stop, the level of recursion just keeps growing and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer ever comes out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earliest point that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can possibly see to abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation is immediately before Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would begin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation. Right before its cycle repeats the first time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it DOES abort there, then so will H^.H when it gets to that point in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation, which will be AFTER The point that H has stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating it, so H doesn't know what H^ will do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if H DOES abort there, we presume from your previous answer it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will think the input will not halt and answer qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts right after Ĥ.Hq0 before it simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if it does, as I said below, so will H^.H when it is run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, H^.H will give the same answer as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so H^ will act contrary to what H says,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so H will give the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike anything else that anyone else has ever done both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determine that they must abort their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOPE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no source can be cited then the Olcott thesis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "that no one did this before" remains unrefuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, BY THE DEFINITIONS of what H MUST do to be correct, and what H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WILL do by its design, as shown in the Linz Proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no source can be cited that shows a simulating halt decider can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determine that it must abort its simulation of the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem's pathological input to prevent its own non-termination, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation remains attributable to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it can abort its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just needs some way to get the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I have always been using this long before I read about it*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you have mo idea how things actually works, this seems to just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate random noise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I am aware of no one else that had the idea to apply a simulating*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *termination analyzer to the halting problem counter-example input*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Hehner had a seed of this idea before I did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, I remember talk of that when I was in college, and they showed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why it can't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies to texts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program to a program text that includes a call to that same halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program with that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You THINK so, but if the interpreter is a CONDITIONAL interpreter, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hold.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to miss that fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Turing Machine and Olcott machine implementations seem to be dead*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This the (possibly augmented) RASP machine equivalent of x86*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every machine must be able to get its own machine address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the reason it is a dead end is they make it too hard for you to cheat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to hide that your H is trying to get in some extra information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hide that the embedded version of H doesn't give the same answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which just shows that your H^ is built wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My C code proves these two have different behavior:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H1(D,D) + H1_machine_address
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) + H_machine_address
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) does correctly determine the halt status of D(D) because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) does NOT correctly determine the halt status of D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) is isomorphic to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is isomorphic to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct reasoning will show who is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and since H1 is a different computation than H, it getting the
>>>>>>>>>>>> right answer doesn't keep H from being broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can then make a D1 to break H1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that immibis already said that and I did not notice
>>>>>>>>>>> the significance of it at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then we are back to undecidability being incorrectly construed
>>>>>>>>>>> as an actual limit to computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Strange definition of not an actual limit if not being able to do
>>>>>>>>>> something isn't a limit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor's Hehner and Stoddart have only construed this as
>>>>>>>>>>> applying to the Halting Problem's pathological input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We three perfectly agree on this as it pertains to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That two full PhD professors of computer science and I all
>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this shows that I am not a crackpot/crank on this.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that all of the other options may now be exhausted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am very happy that I quit tolerating the [change the subject]
>>>>>>>>>>> form of rebuttal that wasted 15 years with Ben Bacarisse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *The focus now must be on finding the best words that prove*
>>>>>>>>>>> *this original position of mine (thus the concurring positions*
>>>>>>>>>>> *of professors Hehner and Stoddart) is correct*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go knock yourself out on that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>> > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The PROBLEM is the question if a machine can compute the Halting Function.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that, has turned out to be NO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the problem was first being posed, it was hoped the answer woudl
>>>>>>>>>> be yes, so it couldn't have bee made specifically to make it impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Halting QUESTION, has an answer for every input that it the
>>>>>>>>>> description of an actual algorithm applied to an actual data input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, Not a "Template" that gets appled to the decider, that IS an
>>>>>>>>>> invalid question, and impossible to build a description of a Turing
>>>>>>>>>> Machine to ask that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you admitted that your input wasn't actually a description
>>>>>>>>>> of a program, but just a template, you were admitting that you were
>>>>>>>>>> lying about working on the Halting Problem, as your input isn't of the
>>>>>>>>>> right type.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, asking about a template IS an invalid question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>>>>>>>>> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>>>>>>>>> > …
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, when you are asking the actual Halting Question, about a specific
>>>>>>>>>> machine and input, like a SPECIFIC H^, built to foil a SPECIIFIC H,
>>>>>>>>>> then that input has a specific and definate behavior and there is a
>>>>>>>>>> specific and definate answer (That depends on the H that you chose to
>>>>>>>>>> build it on, but not the decider you are asking the question to).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, as explained above. You are just showing that you never
>>>>>>>>>> understood the actual question or what any of the theory actually
>>>>>>>>>> means, and have just wasted the last decades of your life on a stupid
>>>>>>>>>> misconception of your own.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Direct Link to original message*
>>>>>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That YES and NO are the wrong answer for each implementation of
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specified by the second ⊢* state transition proves that the
>>>>>>>>> questions asked of these machine/inputs pairs are incorrect questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An incorrect answer does not mean that the question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When every element of the infinite set of every possible
>>>>>>> implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer then
>>>>>>> there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the definition by Linz there is only one Ĥ for each H.
>>>>>> Anyway, a wrong answer, even if given in large quentities, does
>>>>>> not make the question worng.
>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less the infinite set of every implementation of
>>>>> H/Ĥ.H cannot possibly get an answer that is consistent with
>>>>> the behavior of of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> The infinite set is not expected to answer. And the set is
>>>> infinite only if you include defective imiplementations.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, no memeber of the set of implementations can get
>>>> an answer that is consistent with the corresponding counter
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> When we disallow decider/input pairs that are incorrect
>>> questions where both YES and NO are the wrong answer
>>> (the same way the ZFC disallowed self-referential sets) then
>>> pathological inputs are not allowed to come into existence.
>>
>> No question of the type "Does T(I) halt?" is incorrect
>> in that sense.
>>
> The self-contradictory instances are all incorrect.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55759&group=comp.theory#55759

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:15:42 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad> <uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me> <usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me> <usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me> <usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me> <uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me> <ussmft$121gi$1@dont-email.me> <ussmjr$1224v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1689482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WiDUsYl0b7OkigxYthCiO"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:28voNMukMpmSALbLqk24SFG9w3s=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:15 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:09:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 12:07 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:03:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid or
>>>>>>>>>>>> else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines an
>>>>>>>>>> execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL question, the
>>>>>>>> input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that changes by the decide
>>>>>>>> that it trying to decide it) then there are a LOT of machines that get
>>>>>>>> the right answer. The key is we know that there is ONE that doesn't,
>>>>>>>> the one that particular decider was built to foil. Thus, the problem
>>>>>>>> isn't an invalid question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct yes/no answer
>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the wrong answer
>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a yes/no
>>>>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this machine/input pair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you" varies.
>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>>>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>>>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>>>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>>>>> a number).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>>>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>>>>> the agent that performs it.
>>>>
>>>> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the specification of a the halting problem allows pathological
>>> inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].
>>
>> Perhaps according to Hehner's definition of "subjective" but
>> not acccording to your definition.
>>
>
> None-the-less
> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
> for H to do this is bogus.

Never the less, since every possible "Does T(I) halt?" question
has a correct answer the halting problem is well posed.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usupvr$1jir8$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55760&group=comp.theory#55760

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:19:07 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <usupvr$1jir8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <usmo12$3io83$2@dont-email.me> <usn6l2$3ltl1$3@dont-email.me> <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me> <uspr2a$b9av$6@dont-email.me> <ussmm4$123bk$1@dont-email.me> <ussn6b$1224v$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1690472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zsUqyCrKI09moIAZfZ06z"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J+gxe57qIn15hd/SZVmWJJsuqYg=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:19 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:19:06 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 12:10 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:06:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:06:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 01:24:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid or
>>>>>>>>>> else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines an
>>>>>>>> execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>>>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently the answer is "no" as no such Turing machine is shown
>>>>>> or mentioned above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>> This proves that there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. It proves that there is something wrong with
>>>> every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets
>>>> the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Your reasoning is just like this reasoning*
>>> "This sentence is not true." is not true and that makes it true.
>>> You are stopping right there and not seeing the infinite cycle.
>>>
>>> *Please see my new post for a complete elaboration of this*
>>> [Proving my 2004 claim that some decider/input pairs are incorrect questions]
>>
>> Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>
> *You have already affirmed otherwise*
>
> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
> >> *Formalized*
> >> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
> >> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
> >> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
> >
> > Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.

That says nothing about Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ nor about correctness of
the other answer. Therefore "otherwise" is not affirmed there.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usuq2s$1jir8$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55761&group=comp.theory#55761

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:20:44 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <usuq2s$1jir8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usijm6$1bt2h$1@i2pn2.org> <usikk8$2gnhr$8@dont-email.me> <usiljd$2hc10$3@dont-email.me> <usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me> <usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me> <usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me> <usp8md$7iej$1@dont-email.me> <usprbt$b9av$7@dont-email.me> <ussn3n$125up$1@dont-email.me> <ussn9n$1224v$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bec9904f99eef10a13cf2011a14f169";
logging-data="1690472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z6guS6wserbzNnxMZ73rK"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BsM0vqx2urpIrX/q71m5fokQ6mg=

by: Mikko - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:20 UTC

On 2024-03-13 17:20:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/13/2024 12:17 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-12 15:11:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:23:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-10 18:07:14 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unlike anything else that anyone else has ever done both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determine that they must abort their own
>>>>>>>> simulation to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, they incorrectly determine this because they determine this even
>>>>>>> though it is not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter much whther the determination of the need to abort
>>>>>> is correct or not. Either way, the after that determination and aborting,
>>>>>> the answer H gives is (for at least one input) wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees.
>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it cannot see.
>>>>
>>>> Correctness is not defined in terms of what someting "sees". H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> is correct if it reports what the specifiation requires to be reported,
>>>> otherwise it is not. Whether it is possible to report what is required
>>>> is not relevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This alternative specification is decidable*
>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>
>> That is not the specification of halting decider.
>>
>
> If we prove that the other one is wrong and the above one
> is decidable then the halting problem proofs have been refuted.

We can prove that the alternative specification is wrong.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvmr5$1qp6a$6@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55793&group=comp.theory#55793

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:31:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <usvmr5$1qp6a$6@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usikk8$2gnhr$8@dont-email.me>
<usiljd$2hc10$3@dont-email.me> <usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me>
<usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me>
<usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me>
<usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me>
<usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
<usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me> <usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me>
<usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me> <usp8md$7iej$1@dont-email.me>
<usprbt$b9av$7@dont-email.me> <ussn3n$125up$1@dont-email.me>
<ussn9n$1224v$5@dont-email.me> <usuq2s$1jir8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:31:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7";
logging-data="1926346"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rQYeWZ9RXU/V6wRlLPlUV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tQS5rEN2ccC3G9oT7I760tyz7wQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usuq2s$1jir8$2@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:31 UTC

On 3/14/2024 7:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 17:20:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 12:17 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-12 15:11:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:23:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-10 18:07:14 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Unlike anything else that anyone else has ever done both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determine that they must abort their own
>>>>>>>>> simulation to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, they incorrectly determine this because they determine
>>>>>>>> this even though it is not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter much whther the determination of the need to abort
>>>>>>> is correct or not. Either way, the after that determination and
>>>>>>> aborting,
>>>>>>> the answer H gives is (for at least one input) wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it
>>>>>> sees.
>>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it cannot
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correctness is not defined in terms of what someting "sees". H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> is correct if it reports what the specifiation requires to be
>>>>> reported,
>>>>> otherwise it is not. Whether it is possible to report what is required
>>>>> is not relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This alternative specification is decidable*
>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>
>>> That is not the specification of halting decider.
>>>
>>
>> If we prove that the other one is wrong and the above one
>> is decidable then the halting problem proofs have been refuted.
>
> We can prove that the alternative specification is wrong.
>

No one ever proved that it is wrong, it does correctly meet
its abort criteria.

*The conventional spec is proved to be wrong for these instances*
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvmt5$1qp6a$7@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55794&group=comp.theory#55794

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:32:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <usvmt5$1qp6a$7@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me>
<usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me>
<usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me>
<uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me>
<uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <usmo12$3io83$2@dont-email.me>
<usn6l2$3ltl1$3@dont-email.me> <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me>
<uspr2a$b9av$6@dont-email.me> <ussmm4$123bk$1@dont-email.me>
<ussn6b$1224v$4@dont-email.me> <usupvr$1jir8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:32:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7";
logging-data="1926346"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4F591xMaXCOTf5dsqJVNB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/rKD6G3SqxAkWKANftKjFT9nWg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usupvr$1jir8$1@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:32 UTC

On 3/14/2024 7:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 17:19:06 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 12:10 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-12 15:06:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:06:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 01:24:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are
>>>>>>>>>>> valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair
>>>>>>>>> defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite
>>>>>>>>> or infinite. Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently the answer is "no" as no such Turing machine is shown
>>>>>>> or mentioned above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>> This proves that there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. It proves that there is something wrong with
>>>>> every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets
>>>>> the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Your reasoning is just like this reasoning*
>>>> "This sentence is not true." is not true and that makes it true.
>>>> You are stopping right there and not seeing the infinite cycle.
>>>>
>>>> *Please see my new post for a complete elaboration of this*
>>>> [Proving my 2004 claim that some decider/input pairs are incorrect
>>>> questions]
>>>
>>> Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>>
>> *You have already affirmed otherwise*
>>
>> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> > On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>> >> *Formalized*
>> >> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>> >> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>> >> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>> >
>> > Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.
>
> That says nothing about Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ nor about correctness of
> the other answer. Therefore "otherwise" is not affirmed there.
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55796&group=comp.theory#55796

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:36:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
<usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me>
<usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me>
<IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad> <uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me>
<usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me> <usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me>
<usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me> <uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me>
<ussmft$121gi$1@dont-email.me> <ussmjr$1224v$1@dont-email.me>
<usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:36:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7";
logging-data="1926346"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qGokdyHDsg7IgpjPUcL3/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r1bvb1wogqsBasW9p7YK3pzaFbY=
In-Reply-To: <usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:36 UTC

On 3/14/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 17:09:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 12:07 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-12 15:03:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO, so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair
>>>>>>>>>>> defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is either
>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite. Therefore it is well-defined and there is
>>>>>>>>>>> no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL question,
>>>>>>>>> the input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that changes by
>>>>>>>>> the decide that it trying to decide it) then there are a LOT of
>>>>>>>>> machines that get the right answer. The key is we know that
>>>>>>>>> there is ONE that doesn't, the one that particular decider was
>>>>>>>>> built to foil. Thus, the problem isn't an invalid question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>>>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>>>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>>>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct yes/no
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer
>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a
>>>>>>>> yes/no
>>>>>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this
>>>>>>>> machine/input pair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you"
>>>>>>> varies.
>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>>>>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>>>>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>>>>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>>>>>> a number).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>>>>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>>>>>> the agent that performs it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the specification of a the halting problem allows pathological
>>>> inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].
>>>
>>> Perhaps according to Hehner's definition of "subjective" but
>>> not acccording to your definition.
>>>
>>
>> None-the-less
>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>> for H to do this is bogus.
>
> Never the less, since every possible "Does T(I) halt?" question
> has a correct answer the halting problem is well posed.
>

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvqk6$1sokd$6@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55807&group=comp.theory#55807

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:36:06 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usvqk6$1sokd$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me>
<uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me>
<uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad>
<uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me> <usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me>
<usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me> <usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>
<uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me> <ussmft$121gi$1@dont-email.me>
<ussmjr$1224v$1@dont-email.me> <usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>
<usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:36:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1991309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:36 UTC

On 3/14/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-13 17:09:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 12:07 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:03:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO, so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair
>>>>>>>>>>>> defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is either
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite. Therefore it is well-defined and there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL question,
>>>>>>>>>> the input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that changes by
>>>>>>>>>> the decide that it trying to decide it) then there are a LOT
>>>>>>>>>> of machines that get the right answer. The key is we know that
>>>>>>>>>> there is ONE that doesn't, the one that particular decider was
>>>>>>>>>> built to foil. Thus, the problem isn't an invalid question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>>>>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>>>>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>>>>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer
>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a
>>>>>>>>> yes/no
>>>>>>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this
>>>>>>>>> machine/input pair.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you"
>>>>>>>> varies.
>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>>>>>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>>>>>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>>>>>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>>>>>>> a number).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>>>>>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>>>>>>> the agent that performs it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the specification of a the halting problem allows pathological
>>>>> inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps according to Hehner's definition of "subjective" but
>>>> not acccording to your definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> None-the-less
>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>
>> Never the less, since every possible "Does T(I) halt?" question
>> has a correct answer the halting problem is well posed.
>>
>
> *The conventional spec is proved to be wrong for these instances*
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvrfb$1ru1i$4@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55811&group=comp.theory#55811

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:50:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <usvrfb$1ru1i$4@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me>
<uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me>
<uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad>
<uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me> <usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me>
<usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me> <usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>
<uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me> <ussmft$121gi$1@dont-email.me>
<ussmjr$1224v$1@dont-email.me> <usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me>
<usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me> <usvqk6$1sokd$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:50:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7";
logging-data="1964082"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19w96N2FJC7ez20hRKFk78W"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cIaAdhf9FFlFr745R2wCSLcuUYA=
In-Reply-To: <usvqk6$1sokd$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:50 UTC

On 3/14/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-13 17:09:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:07 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:03:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO, so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite. Therefore it is well-defined and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL
>>>>>>>>>>> question, the input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that
>>>>>>>>>>> changes by the decide that it trying to decide it) then there
>>>>>>>>>>> are a LOT of machines that get the right answer. The key is
>>>>>>>>>>> we know that there is ONE that doesn't, the one that
>>>>>>>>>>> particular decider was built to foil. Thus, the problem isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> an invalid question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>>>>>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>>>>>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>>>>>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct
>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer
>>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a
>>>>>>>>>> yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this
>>>>>>>>>> machine/input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you"
>>>>>>>>> varies.
>>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>>>>>>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>>>>>>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>>>>>>>> a number).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>>>>>>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>>>>>>>> the agent that performs it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the specification of a the halting problem allows
>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>> inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps according to Hehner's definition of "subjective" but
>>>>> not acccording to your definition.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None-the-less
>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>
>>> Never the less, since every possible "Does T(I) halt?" question
>>> has a correct answer the halting problem is well posed.
>>>
>>
>> *The conventional spec is proved to be wrong for these instances*
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>
>
> Since, that isn't the specification of tha Halting Problem, you are
> working on a Red Herring.
>
> You are just showing you are confused (or lying).

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usvtil$1sokd$9@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55819&group=comp.theory#55819

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:26:28 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usvtil$1sokd$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me>
<usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me>
<IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad> <uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me>
<usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me> <usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me>
<usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me> <uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me>
<ussmft$121gi$1@dont-email.me> <ussmjr$1224v$1@dont-email.me>
<usuppe$1jhsa$1@dont-email.me> <usvn4j$1qp6a$9@dont-email.me>
<usvqk6$1sokd$6@i2pn2.org> <usvrfb$1ru1i$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:26:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1991309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <usvrfb$1ru1i$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:26 UTC

On 3/14/24 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-13 17:09:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:07 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:03:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say NO, so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite. Therefore it is well-defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, the input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes by the decide that it trying to decide it) then
>>>>>>>>>>>> there are a LOT of machines that get the right answer. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> key is we know that there is ONE that doesn't, the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular decider was built to foil. Thus, the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't an invalid question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>>>>>>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>>>>>>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer
>>>>>>>>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this
>>>>>>>>>>> machine/input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you"
>>>>>>>>>> varies.
>>>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>>>>>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>>>>>>>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>>>>>>>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>> a number).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>>>>>>>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>>>>>>>>> the agent that performs it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the specification of a the halting problem allows
>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>> inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps according to Hehner's definition of "subjective" but
>>>>>> not acccording to your definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less
>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>
>>>> Never the less, since every possible "Does T(I) halt?" question
>>>> has a correct answer the halting problem is well posed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The conventional spec is proved to be wrong for these instances*
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>
>>
>> Since, that isn't the specification of tha Halting Problem, you are
>> working on a Red Herring.
>>
>> You are just showing you are confused (or lying).
>
> *In other words no rebuttal can possibly work because I am correct*
>

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<ut181k$27qab$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=55880&group=comp.theory#55880

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:31:16 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <ut181k$27qab$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <usmo12$3io83$2@dont-email.me> <usn6l2$3ltl1$3@dont-email.me> <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me> <uspr2a$b9av$6@dont-email.me> <ussmm4$123bk$1@dont-email.me> <ussn6b$1224v$4@dont-email.me> <usupvr$1jir8$1@dont-email.me> <usvmt5$1qp6a$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf35ab5e3a8ea027439c5edfb6b78d66";
logging-data="2353483"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++8OAVXuPx3i53PEWq5Wv9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MBHohP9tCW1JjmmTNNkOij+aLK4=

by: Mikko - Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:31 UTC

On 2024-03-14 20:32:37 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/14/2024 7:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-13 17:19:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 12:10 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-12 15:06:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 15:06:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-11 01:24:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid or
>>>>>>>>>>>> else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines an
>>>>>>>>>> execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently the answer is "no" as no such Turing machine is shown
>>>>>>>> or mentioned above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>>> This proves that there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. It proves that there is something wrong with
>>>>>> every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets
>>>>>> the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Your reasoning is just like this reasoning*
>>>>> "This sentence is not true." is not true and that makes it true.
>>>>> You are stopping right there and not seeing the infinite cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Please see my new post for a complete elaboration of this*
>>>>> [Proving my 2004 claim that some decider/input pairs are incorrect questions]
>>>>
>>>> Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>>>
>>> *You have already affirmed otherwise*
>>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> > On 2024-03-12 15:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>> >> *Formalized*
>>> >> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> >> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>> >> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>> >
>>> > Yes, this is one way to state Linz' conclusion.
>>
>> That says nothing about Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ nor about correctness of
>> the other answer. Therefore "otherwise" is not affirmed there.
>>
>
> *The conventional spec is proved to be wrong for these instances*
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation about your mistake.

--
Mikko

devel / comp.theory / Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

Pages:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213

server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor

19 May, 2024: Line wrapping has been changed to be more consistent with Usenet standards. If you find that it is broken please let me know here rocksolid.nodes.help

devel / comp.theory / Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

devel / comp.theory / Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

19 May, 2024: Line wrapping has been changed to be more consistent with Usenet standards.
If you find that it is broken please let me know here rocksolid.nodes.help